The problem of the language of physical science in regarding 'consciousness.'

[CartesianFart]

..."For isn't it a misleading metaphor to say:my eyes give me the information that there is a chair over there?" PI 356-Ludwig Wittgenstein

There is an obvious regularities going on in CIV OT in the change of meanings that interest me from what i am reading here.

The spirit is the part of you which is truly you. It is eternal.

I think that it is, by definition. I'll go one step further and state that consciousness is part of the brain.

Consciousness is a product of neuron firings, which occurs in the brain. It is not a part of the brain, but it is produced by it.

One such regularities is the extension or transference of meaning based upon similarities-ie.,the phenomenon of using immaterial concepts in conjunction with material concepts that give an character of a metaphorical one;especially the silliness of the "anthropomorphic metaphors:"the transfer goes from something belonging to an individual or close to him or her(body,brain,neurons,garments and other things that are material) to something more remote(spirit,consciousness,and other abstract entities).

For example="grasping ideas,""seeing the point of a joke,""body of knowledge,""in the back of my mind," and many other expressions.

It is as they take the domain of the abstract concept and merge with the domain of the material or taking the domain of the material and producing the abstract and other manners.

To rephrase the conclusion already stated:the dimension of truth and falsity is not invoked by all the utterances of the language of "anthropomorphic metaphors";which is the basterization of the marriage of the material(sense-contents of the material dimension) and the abstract(entity behind the sense-contents).

Last but not least,in principle,when we talk of physical science,we must use only the ideal language(grammar[syntax]) in terms of a tie connecting the symbols of material things as being observable things in the world,or the data of one's sense experience,or both.Any conjunctional words and statements in the proposition in context that are abstract(such as consciousness or sub-consciousness and etc.)is something primitive,vague,innaccurate,and downright confusingly misleading.

 

[Fifty]

1. Late Wittgenstein sucks. You really ought not to take everything he says as gospel. Stick with the Wittgenstein of Tractatus, PI is just weird.

2. There is a definite philosophical consensus (even among intellectual adversaries e.g. Searle and Dennett) that consciousness is a product of the brain.

3. I don't know if I even am discussing what you want to be discussed, because your writing style is very difficult to comprehend. Perhaps you ought to rephrase yourself in a more clear manner?

4. I see no problem with using the word consciousness in science. It takes all of one sentence to clear up what you mean by consciousness, then you can go on using it.

5. Late Wittgenstein's "ideal language" stuff was just weird.

6. This is the only post I'm making in this thread, because I'm off to spring break now.

 

[CartesianFart]

1. Late Wittgenstein sucks. You really ought not to take everything he says as gospel. Stick with the Wittgenstein of Tractatus, PI is just weird.

I don't take it as a gospel but to take some of his remarks either out context by way of superimposing over it or just simple inspiration.

PI is not wierd(maybe you are reading as one would read a novel) it is just a collection of remarks on the philosophy of meaning,mind,proposition and many subject related to logic.

2. There is a definite philosophical consensus (even among intellectual adversaries e.g. Searle and Dennett) that consciousness is a product of the brain.

Good for them.I just think that 'consciousness' should be left out not in theorectical papers but just in the department of science in regarding how our brain works and other things that are parts of the brain.IT is just that i am tired of philosophers using it and disregarding the principle of physicalism as something to incorporate with something that is historically metaphysical.

3. I don't know if I even am discussing what you want to be discussed, because your writing style is very difficult to comprehend. Perhaps you ought to rephrase yourself in a more clear manner?

I said it and can't change it to suit your style.Unless there is some kind of discourse between me and you over some of the things i've mentioned.

4. I see no problem with using the word consciousness in science. It takes all of one sentence to clear up what you mean by consciousness, then you can go on using it.

Can you see it as a problem of using the word 'consciousness?'

5. Late Wittgenstein's "ideal language" stuff was just weird.

Ok.You are repeating yourself and trying to convince me that is wierd,then tell me what is it that this particular guy wrote that signify as being weird instead of just stating only "that it is wierd."

6. This is the only post I'm making in this thread, because I'm off to spring break now.

Have fun,dude.

 

[Swedishguy]

Don't take everything that some of our 'more spiritual posters' say too seriously.

 

[Ayatollah So]

the silliness of the "anthropomorphic metaphors:"the transfer goes from something belonging to an individual or close to him or her(body,brain,neurons,garments and other things that are material) to something more remote(spirit,consciousness,and other abstract entities).

For example="grasping ideas,""seeing the point of a joke,""body of knowledge,""in the back of my mind," and many other expressions.

[...]
Last but not least,in principle,when we talk of physical science,we must use only the ideal language(grammar[syntax]) in terms of a tie connecting the symbols of material things as being observable things in the world,or the data of one's sense experience,or both.

Brilliant folks like Carl Hempel tried and failed many times over to draw the line Wittgenstein wants us to draw, between sentences "tied to observables" and those that are not. That makes me doubt the utility of trying to "idealize" language in that way.

The ties to observables will only become clear with further progress of science; they should not be stipulated in advance.

 

[punkbass2000]

Don't take everything that some of our 'more spiritual posters' say too seriously.

Be sure to listen to the 13-year-old followers of Knubb, though.

 

[warpus]

I have been waiting for this thread to flesh itself out a bit before posting, due to the semi-confusing nature of the OP.. and also.. I was drunk last night

so let me ask you CartesianFart

are you saying that the consciousness is something that lies beyond science.. ie. something that cannot be studied?

is it beyond the means of psychology and neurology to study and understand? Will we need new disciplines of science to study it, or is it just impossible?

If so, why?

 

[Shaihulud]

According to physical science, conciousness is the higher function of the brain activity. Use of metaphor is not prevalent in scientific papers and discouraged, i don't really know anything about neuroscience but i don't think they can be too different.

 

[Brighteye]

I don't see the problem with metaphors, even the type of metaphors described. If you're too stupid to realise that there isn't actually a body out there that is 'all knowledge' then you're too stupid to be talking about it anyway.

Calling consciousness a product of the brain is not one of these metaphors. It is an assertion based on facts.

 

[Swedishguy]

Be sure to listen to the 13-year-old followers of Knubb, though.

There is a thirteenyearold Knubb follower?

 

[aneeshm]

Thankfully, this problem does not exist for Indians like me - our languages have an elaborate vocabulary dealing with consciousness and all things related to it.

 

[CartesianFart]

Brilliant folks like Carl Hempel tried and failed many times over to draw the line Wittgenstein wants us to draw, between sentences "tied to observables" and those that are not. That makes me doubt the utility of trying to "idealize" language in that way.

Tell me something about this fellow briefly on what he failed to do since i am not familiar of him or his works.

The ties to observables will only become clear with further progress of science; they should not be stipulated in advance.

Not be stipulated?Are you saying there should not be some rules in the grammar of science and in advance before conducting the activity of science?

I have been waiting for this thread to flesh itself out a bit before posting, due to the semi-confusing nature of the OP.. and also.. I was drunk last night

I hope i wasn't the cause of your drinking.

so let me ask you CartesianFart

are you saying that the consciousness is something that lies beyond science.. ie. something that cannot be studied?

What my aim is to disregard 'consciousness' away from science is to simply abolish it.

As long as 'consciousness' is used then it will continue to be asserted by people who use it to presuppose that there is some kind of phenomenon that is behind physical object which determine its meaning as something of a personal identity in conjunction to natural laws.

is it beyond the means of psychology and neurology to study and understand? Will we need new disciplines of science to study it, or is it just impossible?

Not impossible but just not necessary for the realm of neuroscience.Psychology on the other hand should only use description of principles and procedures of inquiry of human behavior in strict empirical statements for to validate itself as being an extension of social science.

I don't see the problem with metaphors, even the type of metaphors described. If you're too stupid to realise that there isn't actually a body out there that is 'all knowledge' then you're too stupid to be talking about it anyway.

I agree with you on that but it is the very fact that mixing metaphors(which some literature of science do in mass-produced magazines and many other venues) with scientific datas have indeed given the public a wrong message on what the appropraite language of science;especially human biology.

Calling consciousness a product of the brain is not one of these metaphors. It is an assertion based on facts.

I beg to differ, the assertion is metaphorical based on the characteristic of consciousness as being inanimate from a part of a human body.

 

[Brighteye]

Consciousness exists. I know this because I am conscious.

I infer from other people's actions, which are similar to my own, that they also are conscious. They also claim to be conscious.
I then proceed to note that such actions cease when the brains ceases its normal function, be it through sleep or injury.

I therefore conclude that consciousness is a property of the brain.

How do you differ from this? What line of reasoning makes you suppose that consciousness has nothing to do with the brain?

 

[warpus]

What my aim is to disregard 'consciousness' away from science is to simply abolish it.

So you don't think we can use the scientific method to understand consciousness?

Why not?

 

[aneeshm]

So you don't think we can use the scientific method to understand consciousness?

Why not?

Who says we can't use the scientific method to understand consciousness? We just have to apply it to the inner world instead of the outer, that's all.

Ever heard of Raja Yoga?

 

[CartesianFart]

Consciousness exists. I know this because I am conscious.

Spirits exists.I know this because i am spiritual.

I think therefore i exist.I know this because i am a thinking thing.

I infer from other people's actions, which are similar to my own, that they also are conscious. They also claim to be conscious.

That is not science.Just an expression of you being in a community of individuals, who by custom,use the word 'consciousness' in variety of ways because the word itself exist for the purpose of having the sense of 'belonging'.

I then proceed to note that such actions cease when the brains ceases its normal function, be it through sleep or injury.

You are speaking of 'action',err...right?

I therefore conclude that consciousness is a property of the brain.

Ok.I guess i will say,"I therefore,think not!"

How do you differ from this? What line of reasoning makes you suppose that consciousness has nothing to do with the brain?

Because physical science do not use figure of speech.

 

[warpus]

Who says we can't use the scientific method to understand consciousness? We just have to apply it to the inner world instead of the outer, that's all.

Ever heard of Raja Yoga?

If that's not the point CartesianFart is trying to make, then I don't know what it is.

 

[CartesianFart]

So you don't think we can use the scientific method to understand consciousness?

What methods of science are we talking about?

 

[warpus]

What methods of science are we talking about?

The scientific method in full

1. Observation
2. Description
3. Prediction
4. Control
5. Falsifiability
6. Casual Explanation
7. Repeat

The way we go about understanding any other process

 

[CartesianFart]

The scientific method in full

1. Observation
2. Description
3. Prediction
4. Control
5. Falsifiability
6. Casual Explanation
7. Repeat

The way we go about understanding any other process

1. Observation
Tell me,can you observe the consciousness as a thing?
Tell me,can you observe other's consciousness?
2. Description
Well this is hard to ascertain so i have to give a shot:Consciousness is not defined as something of a material thing but can be described in a statement of not having a material property or not being a part of a property that is material.
3. Prediction
Can you speak of your consciousness of having a state of a past,present,or future for us to observe at any particular time instead of you introspecting alone?
4. Control
5. Falsifiability
6. Casual Explanation
7. Repeat
Can we take a particular consciousness and sample all the datas that we observed to determine which observer or method is biased?